Tax- Exemption 


No  Excuse  for  Spoliation: 


CONSIDERATIONS  IN  OPPOSITION  TO  THE  PETITION,  NOW  BEFORE  THE 
MASSACHUSETTS  LEGISLATURE,  TO  PERMIT  THE 
SALE  OF  THE 


OLD  SOUTH  CHURCH. 

BY 

JOSIAH  PHILLIPS  QUINCY. 


“We  shall  set  up^vithin  the  church  a lottery  of  such  prizes  as  are  the  direct  inviting  causes 
of*  avarice  and  ambition;  both  unnecessary  and  harmful  to  be  proposed,  and  most  easy,  most  con- 
venient, and  needful  to  be  removed.”  — John  Milton. 


BOSTON: 


PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

PROPRIETORS  OF  “OLD  AND  NEW.” 


1874. 


V3  V V 

Gt 

\ • 0,  , 


T 


O H ‘ -L.0/  trof  lo  / 


P* 

i 10 


>1 


* TAX-EXEMPTION  NO  EXCUSE  EOE  SPOLIATION. 

*'  * 


i 

a 


p 28626 


TAX-EXEMPTION 


NO  EXCUSE  FOR  SPOLIATION. 


It  is  well  known  that  petitions  have  been  presented  to  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  praying  for  the  repeal  of  those  clauses  in  our  statutes  which  prohibit 
the  collection  of  taxes  from  corporations  claiming  to  be  religious,  educational,  or 
benevolent.  This  movement  against  tax-exemption,  which  has  found  its  ablest 
advocate  in  an  Orthodox  journal  of  wide  circulation,  has  no  connection  with  any 
special  form  of' belief  or  unbelief,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  any  theory  respecting 
the  propriety  of  granting  State  aid  to  corporate  bodies.  It  asserts  only  that  this 
form  of  State  aid  is  unjustifiable  and  dangerous.  It  seeks  to  call  the  attention  of 
legislators  to  the  present  injustice  of  our  exemption-laws,  and  to  the  evils  with 
which  they  threaten  our  future.  But  while  many  good  men  feel  strongly,  and 
even  bitterly,  the  impolicy  of  these  laws,  all  wise  men  must  unite  in  opposing  their 
immediate  and  unconditional  abolition.  Any  one  but  a fanatic  must  see  that  it 
would  be  inexpedient  — and  inexpedient,  because  it  would  be  unjust  — to  assess 
the  Institute  of  Technology  or  the  noble  Catholic  Cathedral  upon  Washington 
Street  on  their  property  valuation  in  the  coming  May.  The  penalties  of  injudi- 
cious legislation  cannot  be  remitted  by  drawing  the  pen  through  a bad  law.  If 
taxes  are  ever  to  be  assessed  upon  existing  corporations  now  exempted,  they  must 
come  very  gradually,  after  due  warning,  and  as  part  of  a statesmanlike  scheme  of 
economic  reform.  I offer  three  suggestions,  which  embody  all  the  legislation  which 
seems  to  me  desirable  at  the  present  time. 

First , That,  so  far  as  regards  all  corporations  hereafter  to  be  created , this 
objectionable  form  of  State  aid  shall  be  abolished.  If  assistance  is  to  be  given 
them,  it  shall  take  the  form  of  direct  appropriation. 

Second , That  no  existing  corporation  shall  be  permitted,  upon  sale  of  exempted 
property,  to  appropriate  its  increased  value  for  secular  or  non-charitable  purposes ; 
except  such  corporations  as  shall  elect  to  purchase  this  right  by  paying,  principal 
and  interest,  all  taxes  which  have  been  remitted  to  them. 

Third , That  a commission  be  appointed  to  consider  what  may  be  the  just 
claims  of  tax-exempted  corporations  upon  the  State ; and  also  how  that  mode  of 
State  assistance  may  be  finally  abolished  with  the  least  possible  injury  to  the  reli- 
gious and  educational  interests  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  to  the  just  property 
interests  of  any  special  class  of  her  citizens ; and  that  this  commission  shall  report 
to  some  future  legislature. 


6 


The  legislation  above  indicated  would  give  a reasonable  protection  to  the  public, 
and  would  interfere  with  the  existing  rights  of  no  one.  It  is,  however,  to  the 
second  suggestion,  that  I ask  especial  attention ; for  this  touches,  not  tax-exemp- 
tion in  itself,  but  a most  flagrant  abuse  of  that  privilege.  Many  persons  who  find 
nothing  objectionable  in  the  principle  of  exemption  from  taxation  will  heartily  con- 
demn a wrong  for  which  it  is  in  no  wise  responsible.  The  remarks  that  I have  to 
offer  upon  this  subject  may  be  introduced  by  quoting  a statement  of  that  very  relia- 
ble journal  “ The  Boston  Daily  Advertiser.’’  From  the  issue  of  Sept.  26,  I cut 
this  paragraph  : — 

“ The  old  Congregational  Church  at  Litchfield,  Conn.,  has  been  turned  into  an 
opera-house ; and  they  now  dance  under  the  shadow  of  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher’s 
pulpit.” 

I do  not  trust  myself  to  speak  oft  the  taste  that  would  condemn  to  such  uses  a 
venerable  edifice  hallowed  by  the  worship  of  God,  and  associated  with  a distin- 
guished family  whose  fame  is  dear  to  all  Americans.  There  is,  to  be  sure,  dancing 
and  dancing.  The  memorable  saltation  of  King  David  before  the  ark  was,  doubt- 
less, a modest  and  improving  performance  that  might  not  have  been  out  of  place 
tC  under  the  shadow  of  Dr.  Lyman  Beecher’s  pulpit.”  As  for  the  opera-dancing 
that  at  present  goes  on  there,  one  can  only  hope  that  the  shadow  cast  upon  it  is  a 
pretty  deep  one.  But,  however  offensive  to  sensitive  people  may  be  the  spectacle 
of  an  ecclesiastical  corporation  running  a venerable  church  as  a dance-house  or  a 
post-office,  it  is  only  as  an  outrage  upon  property,  that  they  have  a right  to  demand 
the  interference  of  the  legislator.  I claim  that  no  equitable  interpretation  of  our 
exemption-laws  permits  these  enormous  spoliations.  The  intention  of  these  laws 
must  be  ascertained  by  a consideration  of  the  circumstances  which  gave  them  birth, 
as  well  as  by  principles  notoriously  professed  by  modern  legislators  who  keep  them 
upon  our  statute-book.  The  original  value  paid  for  certain  lands  as  church-lots 
was  exempted  from  taxation.  Their  constantly-increasing  value  as  sites  for  opera- 
houses,  post-offices,  or  stores,  was  never  exempted.  It  was  not  taxed,  because  it 
was  assumed  not  to  exist.  The  church  was  regarded  by  the  legislator  as  a per- 
petual church , never  as  a possible  theatre.  When  ecclesiastical  corporations  appro- 
priate this  latter  value,  they  use  their  exemption-privilege  for  a purpose  for  which 
it  never  was  designed.  They  possess  themselves  of  the  people’s  wealth,  for  which 
they  have  given  no  compensation. 

In  examining  the  purpose  and  scope  of  our  exemption-laws,  I shall  not  hesitate 
to  use  abundant,  and  perhaps  tedious  illustration.  Owing  to  the  complex  nature 
of  the  subject,  it  may  be  difficult  to  bring  the  real  facts  before  the  minds  of  some 
of  our  voters  who  are  unaccustomed  to  economical  considerations.  In  making  the 
attempt,  something  will  be  borrowed  from  a paper  upon  the  Secularization  of  Church- 
Lands,  which  I contributed  to  the  last  May  number  of  Mr.  Hale’s  magazine.  The 
question  we  have  to  consider  is  this  : Given  our  exemption-laws,  how  should  equity 
and  common  sense  interpret  them  in  dealing  with  valuable  churches  thrown  upon 
the  market  by  their  proprietors  ? Let  me  put  a case. 

Jo,hn  and  James  take  money  earned  by  their  labor,  and  saved  by  their  self- 
denial,  and  with  it  buy  adjoining  lots,  and  put  up  buildings.  Each  spends,  we  will 


7 


say,  ten  thousand  dollars.  John  builds  a church:  James  builds  a dwelling-house. 
They  call  upon  their  legislator  to  ask  what  he  will  do  for  them.  The  answer  they 
receive  from  him  amounts  to  this  : — 

“ As  I am  bound  to  carry  out  the  laws  upon  the  statute-book,  I shall  exempt 
from  taxation  the  ten  thousand  dollars  that  J ohn  has  earned,  and  put  into  a church  ; 
or,  what  amounts  to  the  same  thing,  I shall  tax  it,  but  I shall  require  James, 
Charles,  Patrick,  and  the  rest  of  the  people  in  the  directory,  to  pay  the  tax.  The 
ten  thousand  dollars  that  James  has  earned,  and  invested  in  a dwelling-house,  I 
shall  tax  him  for  every  year.” 

So  far,  all  is  perfectly  clear.  At  the  end  of  twenty  years,  J ames  calls  upon 
his  legislator  ; and  the  following  conversation  ensues  : — 

James.  — I am  hardly  used.  My  house,  which  cost  ten  thousand  dollars,  is  now 
taxed  upon  a valuation  of  twenty-five  thousan<J.  Nothing  has  been  added  to  its 
utility  as  a dwelling ; it  is  not  as  good  as  it  was  twenty  years  ago  : and  yet  I have 
been  required  to  work  harder  and  harder  every  year  in  order  to  pay  a constantly 
increasing  tax  upon  it.  And,  if  I cannot  do  this,  you  threaten  to  turn  me  out  of 
doors.  I built  this  house  as  a convenient  residence  for  myself  and  my  family. 
Suppose  my  grandson  occupies  it  one  hundred  years  from  to-day,  please  to  consider 
the  immense  sum  (over  and  above  our  tax  on  ten  thousand  dollars)  that  we  shall 
have  paid  the  State  (!) 

Legislator.  — It  is  evident,  my  friend,  that  you  have  not  considered  the  nature 
of  property  in  real  estate.  To  the  ten  thousand  dollars  earned  by  your  labor  is 
now  added  a value  of  fifteen  thousand,  resulting  from  the  labor  of  other  people. 
You  can  demand  this  increased  value  by  putting  your  land  into  the  market ; and  it 
is  right  that  you  should  make  an  annual  payment  to  the  community  for  the  privi- 
lege. I grant,  that,  if  your  grandson  occupies  this  house  one  hundred  years  from 
to-day,  you  and  your  representatives  will  have  paid,  principal  and  interest,  an  enor- 
mous sum  of  money  to  the  State.  But  you  must  remember  that  every  thing  you 
pay  (above  the  just  tax  on  your  original  ten  thousand  dollars)  is  in  the  nature  of 
an  investment.  Your  payments  resemble  deposits  in  a bank,  which  you  have  the 
privilege  of  withdrawing  upon  writing  a check.  In  the  case  of  real  estate,  your 
check  is  written  in  the  form  of  a deed  of  sale.  If,  at  the  end  of  a hundred  years, 
your  grandson  sells  your  house-lot  as  a site  for  a merchant’s  exchange,  he  will  with- 
draw from  the  community  some  compensation  for  the  taxes  that  I shall  compel  you 
and  your  family  to  pay. 

James.  — I acknowledge  that  this  is  just.  You  are  now  taxing  my  house-lot  upon 
its  increased  value  as  potentially  a store-lot.  But  why  not  tax  my  neighbor  John 
for  the  increased  value  of  his  land  ? I do  not  ask  you  to  tax  him  upon  the  ten 
thousand  dollars  which  he  earned ; for  that  sum  is  forever  exempted  : but  how  can 
you,  with  any  show  of  reason,  omit  to  tax  the  unearned  fifteen  thousand  dollars 
which  he  has  now  the  privilege  of  taking  from  the  community  by  selling  his  land  as 
a store-lot. 

Legislator.  — I do  not  tax  John’s  church-lot  upon  its  increased  value  as  poten- 
tially a store-lot,  because  I assume  that  it  is  forever  consecrated  to  religious  uses, 
and  never  can  be  a store-lot. 


8 


Now  I venture  to  say  that  the  answer  here  given  is  the  only  one  which  a legisla- 
tor who  was  acquainted  with  the  history  of  our  exemption-laws,  and  acknowledged 
the  principles  which  underlie  American  government,  could  possibly  make.  It  is 
plain  that  the  worth  of  a commodity  for  a particular  purpose  may  be  given  to  per- 
sons of  high  moral  character  under  an  implied  understanding  that  it  shall  not  be 
used  for  any  other  purpose.  If  a bishop,  in  his  ecclesiastical  capacity,  accepts  a t 

free  ticket  from  a railroad-company,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  he  is  entitled  only  to  that 
portion  of  its  value  which  may  aid  him  in  discharging  his  episcopal  function  upon  ^ 

the  line  of  the  road.  He  has  no  right  to  sell  his  free  pass  for  what  it  would  be 
worth  to  an  expressman.  Let  us  consider  a parallel  case  between  individuals.  The 
editor  of  a journal,  being  desirous  to  promote  the  moral  welfare  of  the  community, 
offers  a clergyman  one  of  his  columns  every  week  in  order  that  he  may  print  his 
sermon.  The  reverend  gentleman  sends  a few  discourses,  and  then  calls  at  the 
office  to  say  that  he  has  decided  to  sell  his  weekly  column  for  what  it  may  be  worth 
to  advertisers.  He  condescends  to  add,  that  the  sum  he  expects  to  realize  will  be 
useful  in  publishing  an  edition  de  luxe  of  his  sermons,  on  cream-laid  paper,  bound 
in  red  morocco.  Editors  are  mild  and  long-suffering  men ; yet  I fear  that  the  reply  x 
that  would  be  elicited  by  so  extraordinary  a proposition  could  not  be  printed  with- 
out several  dashes. 

If  there  is  a distinctive  American  principle,  understood  by  every  schoolboy,  it  is 
that  any  State  favor  shown  to  religious  associations  must  give  no  unequal  aid  in 
propagating  the  different  creeds  held  by  the  churches ; and,  if  a given  interpreta- 
tion of  the  exemption-law  must  always  violate  this  principle,  it  is  not  one  that  our 
legislators  can  be  supposed  to  countenance.  An  illustration  will  make  plain  the 
violation  I allege.  ^ 

Paul  and  Peter  build  churches  in  villages  ten  miles  apart.  Each  pays  for  land 
and  building  twenty  thousand  dollars.  Both  churches  are  alike  in  size  ; and  both 
are  filled.  The  service  each  renders  the  State  is  identical  in  value.  At  the  end 
of  forty  years,  Paul’s  church  stands  in  the  village  where  it  was  placed.  Peter’s 
church  is  now  im  the  centre  of  a city,  built  up  by  the  toils  and  risks  of  a heavily- 
taxed  population  of  all  creeds  and  of  no  creed.  Peter  now  proposes  to  sell  his 
church  for  two  hundred  thousand  dollars ; the  land  upon  which  it  stands  having 
acquired  that  value  for  commercial  purposes.  Whereupon  Paul  calls  upon  his  legis- 
lator, and  makes  this  just  complaint : — 

“ While  favoring  our  churches  with  a special  privilege,  I beg  that  you  will  take 
care  to  favor  them  equally.  Peter  and  I have  rendered  precisely  the  same  service  ; 
yet,  through  your  interference,  Peter  proposes  to  possess  himself  of  a large  sum  of 
money,  nine-tenths  of  which  he  has  in  no  way  earned.  I have  only  the  twenty 
thousand  dollars  that  I earned  by  labor  (for  my  church  will  bring  no  more  if  put 
into  the  market)  wherewith  to  evangelize  the  world  with  my  scriptural  Calvinism. 

To  be  sure,  I hold  that  sum  untouched,  through  your  privilege  of  exemption  from 
taxation  ; but  Peter  asserts  that  this  same  privilege  has  given  him  ten  times  the 
amount  wherewith  to  forward  his  unscriptural  Romanism.  I ask  you  to  do  justice 
between  us.” 

Now,  if  our  supposed  legislator  be  worthy  to  exercise  his  function,  I hold  that 
he  must  reply  substantially  thus  : — . 


9 


1 


“ My  design  was  obviously  to  exempt  from  taxation  the  savings  of  a man’s  la- 
bor, provided  he  built  a church  with  them.  I also  desired  to  assure  church-mem- 
bers that  they  should  never  be  driven  from  their  familiar  houses  of  worship  by  taxes 
assessed  upon  their  increasing  value  as  potential  store-lots.  I could  do  this  justly 
only  upon  the  ground  that  they  were  consecrated  to  sacred  uses,  and  were  not 
potential  store-lots.  It  is  evident  that  I never  contemplated  your  churches  as  mar- 
ketable commodities.  So  long  as  both  are  used  for  religious  purposes,  there  is  no 
discrimination  between  you ; but  now  Peter  proposes  to  turn  into  cash  no.t  only  the 
value  of  his  own  labor,  exempted  from  all  taxation,  but  the  value  of  other  people’s 
labor,  which  he  claims  to  hold  under  a similar  privilege.  He  has  no  right  to  do  this. 
I exempted  the  value  of  his  land  as  a perpetual  church-lot , never  as  a future  store- 
lot.  In  assuming  that  he  was  possessed  of  this  latter  value,  he  uses  my  exemption 
privilege  to  gain  a great  advantage  over  Paul,  and  to  appropriate  wealth  for  which 
he  has  given  no  compensation.  I therefore  decree,  that,  if  Peter  chooses  to  sell  his 
church,  he  shall  take  his  original  twenty  thousand  dollars,  untaxed  and  untouched, 
and  put  them  to  such  religious  work  as  he  shall  elect.  Or,  if  he  asserts  that  his 
shrewdness  in  selecting  this  church-site,  now  so  valuable  as  a store-site,  deserves 
compensation,  he  may  receive  it  on  the  same  terms  that  all  other  citizens  take  the 
increased  value  of  their  estates,  — by  showing  receipts  for  back  tax-bills.” 

I think  that  every  disinterested  person  must  admit  that  such  a decision  would 
carry  out  the  intention  of  our  exemption-laws,  and  bear  some  relation  to  equity  and 
common  sense.  Let  us  proceed  to  apply  the  principles  that  have  been  considered 
to  the  case  of 


The  Old  South  Church. 

A little  more  than  a year  ago,  a majority  of  the  proprietors  of  the  Old  South 
petitioned  the  Legislature  for  leave  to  lease  that  historical  church  to  the  United 
States  Government  for  a post-office.  Let  me  recall  the  circumstances  under  which 
that  petition  was  presented.  Boston  had  just  been  visited  by  an  appalling  calamity. 
The  Legislature  was  hastily  summoned  to  lend  any  aid  that  might  be  possible  in 
that  hour  of  her  great  distress.  From  the  general  ruin  and  confusion  that  suc- 
ceeded the  conflagration,  the  Post-Office  had  taken  temporary  refuge  in  Faneuil 
Hall.  It  was  urged  that  the  functions  of  this  important  institution,  vital  to  the 
religious,  social,  and  business  interests  of  the  afflicted  city,  should  not  be  cramped 
by  the  unsuitable  situation  to  which  it  had  been  driven.  Postmaster  Burt  came 
before  the  committee  of  the  Legislature  with  the  statement  that  the  Old  South 
Church  was  “ the  only  available . central  position  ” for  the  temporary  use  of  the 
Post-Office.  I quote  the  exact  words  of  his  plea  as  given  in  the  journals  of  the 
day,  “ The  Government  has  decided  that  the  Old  South  Church  is  the  only  place 
they  can  go  to  ; and  it  will  be  bad  policy  to  refuse  to  allow  them  to  have  it.” 
And  the  decision  of  the  Legislature,  resulting,  it  must  be  supposed,  from  the  weight 
justly  due  to  the  testimony  of  Gen.  Burt,  was  a correct  one.  All  private  interests, 
be  they  theological,  business,  or  sentimental,  should  be  sacrificed  to  the  general 
good  upon  occasions  of  unexpected  calamity.  Whatever  place  the  Gpvernment  had 


10 


decided  was  u the  only  plhco  they  could  go  to”  to  render  proper  postal  service  to 
the  citizens  of  Boston  in  that  day  of  their  distress,  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts 
might  well  consider  itself  bound  to  grant.  It  is  to  be  especially  noted,  that  the 
action  of  the  Legislature  of  1872  concerning  the  Old  South  Church  is  no  precedent 
for  further  legislative  action,  and  does  not  furnish  the  slightest  presumption  of  in- 
tention concerning  its  final  disposition. 

But  if  the  action  of  the  General  Court  admits  of  a satisfactory  explanation,  and 
one  that  all  citizens  who  respect  their  government  are  bound  to  put  upon  it,  how 
shall  we  explain  the  storm  of  indignant  remonstrance  which  greeted  the  proprietors’ 
petition  ? It  was  owing  to  the  motive  that  was  perceived  to  animate  their  move- 
ment. It  was  clear  that  they  designed  to  shelter  themselves  behind  the  excuse  of  a 
sudden  public  necessity,  in  order  that  they  might  with  safety  outrage  the  sentiment 
and  the  property  of  the  community.  These  proprietors  (already  enjoying  an  income 
of  forty-four  thousand  dollars  per  annum)  asked  permission  to  lease  their  old  church 
for  two  years  for  forty-six  thousand  dollars,  in  the  hope,  that,  by  its  sale,  they  might 
possess  themselves  of  a yet  larger  sum,  to  which  they  had  no  equitable  title.  The 
Merchant  of  Venice  thought  “ there  was  much  kindness  in  the  Jew  ” who  offered 
him  a loan  in  the  day  of  his  necessity.  The  merchants  of  Boston  were  not  quite  so 
simple.  The  loan  offered  them  by  these  Christian  proprietors  was  to  be  paid  for 
by  a usury  that  Shy  lock  himself  might  have  blushed  to  ask. 

Then  came  dignified  remonstrances  from  the  Congregational  clergy,  protests  from 
the  leading  citizens  of  Boston,  a general  condemnation  from  the  higher  portion  of 
the  press,  and  a shower  of  small  jests  and  sarcasms,  in  which  the  feelings  of  the 
general  community  sought  relief.  It  was  asserted  that  the  difference  between  the 
sin  of  selling  doves  in  the  gates  of  the  temple,  and  letting  the  temple  itself  as  a post- 
office,  was  not  discernible  to  the  carnal  mind.  It  was  asked  that  the  inscription 
that  these  proprietors  had  set  upon  the  old  church,  giving  the  year  of  its  “ desecra- 
tion ” by  British  troops,  should  be  followed  by  another  record,  proclaiming  the  date 
of  the  second  “ desecration,”  the  names  of  its  “ desecrators,”  and  how  much  they 
got  for  it.  It  was  not  right  to  say  these  things.  Aggrieved  persons  should  have 
hearkened  to  the  counsel  of  the  Psalmist,  and  declined  to  sit  “ in  the  seat  of  the 
scornful.”  We  can  only  excuse  them  by  remembering,  that  when  the  seat  in  ques- 
tion is,  as  it  were,  stuffed  and  padded  with  all  the  resources  known  to  ecclesiastical 
upholstery,  it  takes  a pretty  good  man  to  keep  out  of  it. 

At  a meeting  of  the  Orthodox  ministers  of  Boston,  a remonstrance  against  the 
actions  of  the  proprietors  was  carried  by  a majority  of  twenty-nine  affirmative  over 
three  negative  votes.  Distinguished  divines  of  that  faith,  represented  by  the 
honored  names  of  Leonard  Bacon,  Theodore  G.  Woolsey,  and  Noah  Porter,  added 
weight  to  the  disapproval  of  the  local  clergy.  The  press  throughout  the  country 
expressed  an  indignation,  which  found  its  climax  when  “ The  New  York  Nation,” 
“ unused  to  the  melting  mood,”  experienced  an  attack  of  commendable  ‘‘sentiment- 
alism.” 

And  the  rumor  of  the  day  did  no  wrong  to  the  parties  who  style  themselves  “ Pro- 
prietors of  the  Old  South  Church.”  They  now  propose  to  carry  out  their  pro- 
gramme with  all  convenient  expedition.  By  a vote  standing  twenty-three  in  the 


11 


affirmative  to  ten  in  the  negative  (let  this  dissenting  minority  be  always  honorabl) 
remembered)  tfyey  come  before  the  Legislature  for  leave  to  sell  the  church.  1 
desire  to  put  this  modest  petition  into  plainer  words.  The  Legislature  is  ashed  tc 
lay  a tax  of  some  half-million  of  dollars  upon  the  people,  for  the  benefit  of  an 
ecclesiastical  corporation  from  whose  views  of  religious  truth  an  immense  majority 
of  them  dissent.  I contend  that  the  money  that  the  Massachusetts  Legislature  has 
permitted  these  proprietors  to  receive  from  the  General  Government  constitutes  not 
only  a most  generous  equivalent  for  the  value  of  their  church-site  on  the  day  when 
Madam  Norton  gave  to  it  them,  but  will  cover  whatever  value  there  may  be  in  the 
bricks  and  other  materials  of  the  Old  South,  after  deducting  the  expense  of  taking 
it  down.  And,  if  the  proprietors  abandon  the  church  by  their  own  act,  I assert 
that  this  is  all  that  a reasonable  interpretation  of  our  exemption-law  should  permit 
them  to  carry  off.  It  requires  but  little  consideration  to  see  that  the  sudden  crea- 
tion of  competing  store-sites  for  the  benefit  of  an  ecclesiastical  corporation  is  equiv- 
alent to  an  impost  upon  tax-paying  citizens.  The  half-million  of  dollars  which 
a business-firm  might  give  for  the  Old  South  lot  must  be  taken  from  the  floating 
capital  that  would  otherwise  remunerate  the  risks,  and  reimburse  the  outlay  of 
tax-payers  ; for,  if  this  church-lot  was  not  to  be  had,  it  is  clear  that  the  money 
that  would  be  paid  for  it  must  be  expended  in  purchasing  business  facilities  from 
the  holders  of  taxed  real  estate,  and  through  them  be  distributed  among  the 
people  in  just  compensation  for  their  sacrifices  and  labors. 

But  it  may  be  urged,  that  it  is  very  hard  that  this  wealthy  corporation  should  not 
be  permitted  to  appropriate  half  a million  of  the  people’s  money,  seeing  that  other 
ecclesiastical  bodies  have  made  off  with  value  to  which  their  title  was  no  more  satis- 
factory. To  which  it  may  be  answered,  that,  according  to  all  sound  ethical  writers, 
if  a thing  be  wrong,  no  citation  of  precedents  can  make  it  right.  The  boy  who 
was  caught  carrying  off  the  fish  whose  tail  protruded  beneath  his  jacket  was  much 
distressed  that  some  of  his  companions,  who  were  content  with  taking  shorter  fishes, 
escaped  the  notice  of  the  policeman.  The  judge",  however,  did  not  recognize  the 
cogency  of  this  affecting  defence.  When  public  indignation  was  excited  by  the 
scandalous  “ back  pay  grab”  of  the  last  Congress,  the. ready  apology  was  forth- 
coming, that  the  same  thing  had  been  done  before  on  a smaller  scale,  and  had 
excited  no  marked  rebuke.  This  was  very  true ; and  it  is  also  true  that  the  excuse 
was  worth  nothing  in  the  judgment  of  right-thinking  persons.  It  was  further  urged, 
in  palliation  of  the  congressmen’s  “grab,  ” that  it  was  made  under  legal  forms; 
the  members  using  powers,  which,1  under  the  law,  they  undoubtedly  possessed.  But 
the  proprietors  of  the  Old  South  Church  do  not  offer  the  poor  apology  that  any  law 
gives  them  the  power  to  make  this  levy  upon  the  public.  They  come  before  Mas- 
sachusetts legislators  to  ash  permission  to  lay  this  assessment  upon  their  constitu- 
ents. In  the  case  of  the  congressional  “grab,”  the  people  were  graciously 
permitted  to  tax  the  money  which  their  representatives  appropriated.  Let  it  never 
be  forgotten,  that,  when  the  “grabbing  ” is  done  by  an  ecclesiastical  corporation,  the 
sum  secured  may  be  put  beyond  the  reach  of  all  taxation,  and  the  people  annually 
assessed  for  the  benefit  of  its  appropriators. 

It  has  been  said  that  tlfff  Old  South  is  wanted  for  business-purposes.  If  that 


were  true,  its  value  for  business-purposes  should  be  paid  into  the  public  treasury 
to  lessen  the  fiscal  burdens  of  the  people.  Undoubtedly,  churches  are  sometimes 
.in  the  way  of  street-widening,  and  other  necessary  improvements.  When  they 
are  taken  for  these  objects,  against  the  wishes  of  their  congregations,  government 
should  provide  equally  good  church-buildings  in  convenient  localities.  Any  claim 
for  further  value  is  preposterous.  But  is  the  Old  South  wanted  for  business-pur- 
poses  ? I think  that  it  is  wanted  for  business-purposes  in  precisely  the  sense  in  which 
Dr.  Beecher’s  old  church  is  wanted  for  Terpsichorean  purposes,  and  Boston  Com- 
mon is  wanted  for  house-lots.  We  cannot  too  soon  rid  ourselves  of  the  fallacy 
that  the  interests  of  the  community  in  a given  piece  of  land  are  to  be  measured  by 
the  price  which  an  individual  will  pay  for  a monopoly  of  it.  Mr.  Barnum  would 
give  a very  high  rent  for  the  use  of  Westminster  Abbey  as  a circus  and  menagerie ; 
but  it  would  be  an  abuse  of  language  to  say  that  the  people  of  London  wanted 
their  cathedral  for  those  purposes. 

But  the  Congregational  clergy  tell  us  that  the  Old  South  is  wanted  for  religious! 
uses ; and  their  opinion  deserves  respect.  Is  it  not  in  the  place,  of  all  others 
where  a church  is  wanted?  A writer  in  the  last  “Westminster  Review”  per 
nently  asks,  “ How  is  it  that  we  build  our  churches  where  we  sleep , and  not  where 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word,  we  live  ? How  is  it  that  the  idea  of  retiring  fror 
the  world’s  friction  and  temptation,  to  the  seclusion  and  quiet  of  God’s  house  tl 
pray,  excites  a smile?  Is  it  not  a proof  that  we  make  religion  a thing  to  b] 
donned  with  our  Sunday  clothes,  and  reserved  for  special  occasions  ? ” I am  sur] 
that  there  are  religious  teachers  in  Boston  who  can  fill  the  Old  South  everj 
Sunday  and  several  evenings  in  the  week.  When  all  just  claims  of  these  allege! 
proprietors  have  been  satisfied,  the  church  would  seem  to  belong  to  the  people  : 
might  be  kept  as  a sort  of  sacred  Faneuil  Hall,  where  good  men  of  every  nar 
and  creed  could  preach  the  truth  that  was  in  them.  Let  this  go  as  a suggestio] 
which  I do  not  press.  If  the  Congregational  clergy  can  show  that  they  have 
peculiar  claim  upon  the  old  church,  after  its  abandonment  by  the  proprietors, 
doubt  they  will  put  it  to  good  use. 

Although  it  has  seemed  to  me  right  to  state  the  case  of  the  people  against  th| 
wealthy  corporation  in  as  strong  language  as  the  facts  would  justify,  I make 
imputation  against  the  motives  of  individuals  who  compose  it.  Honorable  ai 
good  men,  acting  as  members  of  a corporate  body,  have,  before  now,  appropriate 
to  their  sectarian  uses  value  which  no  just  interpretation  of  our  exemption-la^ 
can  be  stretched  to  cover.  They  helped  themselves  upon  a comparatively  smal 
scale,  outraged  no  public  sentiment,  and,  I suppose,  experienced  no  twinge 
conscience.  It  probably  never  occurred  to  them  that  their  title  was  not  goc 
to  all  they  could  get  off  with  unchallenged.  And  here,  in  truth,  lies  the  mo| 
alarming  feature  of  the  matter.  When  the  assumption,  now  prevailing,  that  tl 
people  have  no  rights  which  moneyed  corporations  are  bound  to  respect,  has  reack 
those  bodies  who  profess  to  be  the  especial  guardians  of  religion  and  morality,  it 
time  for  the  legislator  to  give  redress. 


